Whats wrong with my Chinquapin Oak

JIML

Treehouser
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
478
Location
Indiana
Chinquapin Oak, Quercus muhlenbergii, I think? I just noticed this today. Not sure what the heck it is. It actually kinda stinks. The creamy colored stuff is mushy, like something dead that maybe that bigass beetle killed? Bunch of ants on it too. I gave the beetle a little Isotox shower. Any ideas? The bark is bulged out some there also. Is it a beetle house? Hate to loose the tree, its a nice one. ~16 years old.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 13
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 10
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 9
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 10
Could be slime flux. Does it have a fermenting wine odor and attracts flying insects?

Justin might be thinking of Phytopthera which is indeed bad news. Slime flux ain't so bad though.
 
Check out this link. Carpenter worms are attracted by slime flux (evidently) and also damaged and/or cracked bark areas, so it is possible to have one with the other.

I would investigate the soft spot. If there is damaged tissue you won't hurt anything by digging around carefully. You might be able to discover the causal with such exploration.

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74105.html

Dave
 
white flux, alcoholic flux, yes remove dead tissue, AND soil around inffection. attached is 5 yrs old but still current imo; at least no one has called it bs.

dam no pdf's here--go to tcia.org and search magazine archives sep 04 Ooze in the News.

Blinky I'd put the 2 diseases on a par in virulence (in nc).
 
Some copper fungicide couldn't hurt, hey?
actually it could, if it did not kill bacteria and went into the soil it could kill beneficials. :P

By Guy Meilleur
“Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy
days of summer; those days of
soda, and pretzels and beer!” as
Nat King Cole sang way back when.
Summer is also the time for other foamy
stuff, the kind that has certain insects
singing songs of cheer. However, this is not
good news for unfortunate older trees that
serve as taverns for moths and hornets and
other imbibing creatures.
Finding these frenzied congregations on
oozing, stinking, discolored areas on the
lower trunks of older trees often incites tree
owners to call arborists this time of year.
But insecticide is not the answer, because
the insects are only a sign of trouble underneath
the bark. Oozing slime is a symptom
of bacterial infection, and “… warm temperatures
are favorable for the
development of some bacterial diseases
…” as John Lloyd notes in Plant Health
Care for Woody Ornamentals.
A coating of polysaccharide, which is
called a “slime layer” for obvious reasons,
surrounds bacterial cells. When the bacteria
multiply, they are forced out of the host
plant and ooze down the bark. Dividing as
fast as once every 20 minutes, they quickly
build up their numbers to as high as a
billion per milliliter. A cocktail of bacteria
– Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, yeasts and
other organisms – causes slime flux disease.
Whether any of these organisms is
particularly pathogenic (or it is simply the
physical pressure caused by all of them
multiplying) that kills the bark is not clearly
understood. Fermentation produces
gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide,
that increases the pressure that ruptures the
bark. Many different microorganisms grow
in the flux, producing an indescribably foul
or alcoholic odor that is hard to miss.
Different species of trees have different
types of slime flux disease. The types
found higher up in wounds and crotches of
elms and poplars are considered relatively
benign. They seldom seem to damage the
Bacteria and gas bubble through the bark between the buttresses. Finding frenzied congregations of insects on oozing, stinking, discolored areas on the lower trunks of older trees often
incites tree owners to call arborists. Insecticide is not the answer, because the insects are only a sign of trouble underneath the bark. Photos courtesy of Guy Meilleur.
TREE CARE INDUSTRY – SEPTEMBER 2004 33
bark aggressively. What damage occurs is
well above ground level and considered
correctable. They are located in Zones 2
and 4 as defined in Dr. Kim Coder’s
“Hazard Tree Evaluation” form, published
in 1990. On older oaks the disease is quite
different; it is typically found between buttress
roots. This is Zone 1, where damage
and disease are considered critical.
Previous physical damage or previous
insect injury is seldom noted at infection
sites on the trees studied. Similar to
included bark in a crotch, the bark between
buttresses seems to be squeezed. One theory
is that the tree opens itself up to
infection by wounding itself when bark is
included, and the bacteria enter from the
soil. This is addressed by Dr. Alex Shigo
in Modern Arboriculture, in which he
states that, “Included bark between roots
and root stubs are common underground
infection courts.”
To act or not to act
The old practice of drilling into the
infection and installing a drain pipe to
direct the slime flux away from the bark
can expand the infection court and worsen
the disease. The wet, alkaline conditions
at these sites is inhospitable to most
decay-causing fungi, so one thought is to
leave well enough alone. When armillaria
fungus is found along with slime flux,
more rhizomorphs are found outside the
oozing areas. Only a few stunted “shoestrings”
are found in the slime. Many
insects that are harmless to the living tree
– ants, termites, centipedes and sowbugs,
for instance – can be found under the dead
bark, but there is no reason to go after
them. However, carpenterworms,
Prionoxystus sp., are also active in these
infection sites. As Warren Johnson and
Howard H. Lyon report in Insects that
Feed on Trees and Shrubs, “Over a period
of time, the activities of the carpenterworm
larvae may prove disastrous to the
host tree …” The need to expose and treat
this pest calls for the removal of dead
bark. Bacterial activity and slime flux on
older oaks can and does kill cambium,
expanding the diseased area every year.
So there is also a clear need for noninvasive
methods to preserve the tree.
The first job is to find out which portions
of the bark are dead. The initial cues are
visual – lesions bleeding with blackened
sap at the margins of the diseased area.
These lesions appear very similar to those
caused by infections of fungi, such as
Phytophthora sp. Auditory cues are gained
by tapping with a rubber or plastic mallet
outside these lesions. A solid sound indicates
living bark over solid wood. Tapping
inside the lesions will produce a hollow
sound, indicating dead bark. A stethoscope
can be used to hear the sound better, but is
often not necessary to detect dead bark.
The next step is probing these areas with a
blunt instrument, such as a trowel or
screwdriver. Remove all discolored bark
down to the wood. In some cases this
means removing a lot of bark. If the infection
encompasses more than half of the
trunk and decay is advancing inward, it is
doubtful the tree will remain safe for very
long. It is probably best to treat these
unfortunate trees with a chain saw at
ground level.
Slime was seen fluxing here in 1998, but it was untreated. Removal is now required.
Bacterial activity and
slime flux on older
oaks can and does kill
cambium, expanding
the diseased area
every year. So there is
also a clear need for
noninvasive methods
to preserve the tree.
Cut around the infected trunk or branch
until you come close to healthy cambium.
Take care not to cut into healthy bark or
wood. Excavation of wounds is still
viewed with skepticism in some circles
precisely because of the fear that careless
digging will result in more damage. When
most of the dead bark has been removed, a
sharper tool will trim the edges of infected
material. In “Helping Plants Survive
Armillaria Root Rot” (November 2003
issue of Tree Care Industry), author J.
Harold Mitchell describes the excavation
of tissue infected with the fungus
Armillaria. Because bacterial infections
seem less virulent and do not cause wood
decay like Armillaria does, a more cautious
approach to tissue removal seems to be
warranted. The goal is to come as close as
possible to healthy tissue without cutting
into it. A blunt-tipped knife, such as a
linoleum knife, can trim the last scraps of
diseased bark without scratching the wood.
There is no need to trace the wound into an
oval, because sap can flow laterally within
the cambium. Careful removal of dead
bark may reveal the cambial layer, still
light in color and adhered to the wood. The
more living cambium that is left, the sooner
the tree can close its wounds. Rinsing off
the last of the debris with a sharp stream of
water from the garden hose or better yet a
jet of air from a pneumatic tool will finish
the excavation work.
 
Chemical conundrums
Once the infected tissue is removed, the
area can dry out, making the environment
more inhospitable for the bacteria. Some
publications recommend sanitizing the
area with a 10 percent bleach solution.
Some bactericides listed for other bacterial
tree problems contain 9.5 percent propy-
lene glycol, so they can also do a good job
of sanitizing the area. Both these chemicals
are very toxic to bacteria, but unfortunately
they are also toxic to plants. Applying
either to tree wounds is very risky and not
recommended for this disease. If holes
from wood-boring insects are found, they
should be excavated of loose material and
probed with a thin tool, such as a coat
hanger or a flexible wire. The goal is to
either crush the pest, or at least clear a
channel for a secondary attack with air,
water or pesticide. No sealant or pruning
paint is ever recommended for this condition,
even after the surface has dried. As
has been said for 20 years, any compound
that can seal out problems can seal in problems.
Light and air will dry out the area
over time; invigoration of the root system
can speed compartmentalization.
Fertilization of diseased plants has
recently become highly controversial.
Some large declining oaks that received a
“stress treatment” of high-nitrogen fertilizer
injected into the soil looked great a year
afterward. Soon after, they succumbed to
Phytophthora and other decay organisms
that thrive on excess nitrogen. As always
with any stressed plant, the soil should be
tested. Any nutritional deficiencies, if
found, should be corrected cautiously. The
elements most lacking in many soils are
oxygen and organic matter, so aeration of
compacted areas and general mulching are
often recommended. Inoculation of soil
around the trunk with beneficial microorganisms
is sometimes done to prevent
infection by basal decay organisms, the
“butt rotters.” This practice is based on the
premise that pathogens will be less able to
take hold in the basal area if there is a
healthy population of microbes that are
symbiotic with the tree. Inoculation is also
an intriguing possibility for prevention of
bacterial infection. However, some of the
same genera of bacteria present in the disease
are also present in the inoculant. A
better understanding of the disease is needed
before these inoculations are made to
prevent bacterial disease.
In the course of excavation, any infected
sites at ground level will require the
removal of earth from the base of the tree.
Small roots may be removed in the
process, but care should be taken not to
nick any woody roots. If fungal pathogens
are identified, the surrounding soil can be
drenched with a listed fungicide, following
label directions. Air and light are the enemies
of most fungal and bacterial
organisms. Therefore, coarse stone inside a
layer of landscape fabric is often used to
replace the excavated soil. This prevents
mulch and debris from coming into contact
with the wound, and makes it easier to
inspect the wound on follow-up monitoring
visits. Trees are best revisited in early
summer, when the slime fluxes again and
the need for additional treatment can be
determined. According to research cited in
“Tree Growth Retardants” in the March
2003 issue of Tree Care Industry, growth
regulators have demonstrated a fungistatic
property due to the inhibition of steroid
production. Since steroids are essential
constituents of membranes in both fungi
and bacteria, application of growth regulators
may also be bacteriostatic. They seem
to hold great promise for the treatment of
bacterial infections.
Survey says …
For the last 15 years we have treated this
disease in central North Carolina. Most of
the trees involved have been located on
residential properties under a variety of
conditions. To gain a better understanding
of this disease, a site with a variety of
mature specimens with a consistent microclimate
and maintenance regimen had to be
surveyed. The quadrangle at the heart of
the University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill campus fit those parameters. School
lore has it that Colonel Davie sat under a
tuliptree on this site in 1792 and started the
first public college in North America. A
preliminary survey of the mature trees on
this historic site was taken to assess the
Carpenter worm larvae growing in concert with
bacterial ooze.
While this picture shows Armillaria fungus best, it is clear that the fungus is suppressed by the bacteria.
extent of this disease. The results follow.
�� 6 of 23 Quercus alba, white oak, were
diseased
�� 2 of 8 Quercus phellos, willow oak
�� 0 of 6 Quercus rubra, red oak
�� 0 of 2 Quercus stellata, post oak
�� 0 of 1 Quercus montana, chestnut oak
�� 0 of 4 Ulmus americana, American elm
�� 0 of 4 Prunus subhirtella, Higan cherry
�� 0 of 5 Liriodendron tulipifera, tuliptree
�� 1 0f 1 Carya tomentosa, mockernut
hickory
The white oaks were by far the worst
affected. Willow oaks were affected as frequently
– on about a quarter of the trees in
this sample. However, their infections were
quite small, 2 and 4 inches wide, as was the
hickory infection. Carpenterworm larvae
were actively feeding under the bark at
the two largest white oak infections, 13
and 16 inches wide. Larvae were not
found in smaller infections, perhaps due
to a sinister symbiosis between these two
problems. The adult moth lays its eggs in
the same time period that the slime is
flowing. They are also known to generally
prefer ovipositing in bark crevices, but
the larvae can enter infected bark much
more easily than healthy bark. They
expand the infection as they feed, which
attracts more adult moths to lay their eggs
there, and around and around the cycle of
destruction goes.
The lack of occurrence in the trunks of
the elms demonstrates that this disease is
very different from what most people call
slime flux, or wetwood. “Slime flux” is a
poor term, because many conditions
involve oozing viscous liquids, such as
resin flow from Scleridia canker in
Leyland cypress, or from borer galleries in
other conifers, oozing gums in Prunus,
wetwood from the xylem of elms and
poplars, and sap from all manner of
wounds.
Whether you call it slime flux, the white
oak woes or the bacterial oozing blues,
treating this condition in a prompt and persistent
manner can prevent fatal damage to
magnificent old trees. Then you can relax
in a hammock under their shade, safely
enjoy a bubbly beverage, and listen to the
birds thank you with their songs of cheer.
Guy Meilleur is a consulting arborist
with Better Tree Care Associates, a tree
preservation company in Apex, N.C.

Whether you call it
slime flux, the white
oak woes or the bacterial
oozing blues,
treating this condition
in a prompt and
persistent manner
can prevent fatal
damage to magnificent
old trees
 
I was going to say use some water mixed with bleach on it.
Or possibly just plain straight apple cider vinegar.


But Treelooker well beat me to it.

Would not apple cider vinegar be helpful ?
 
1. Remove all dead bark, above and below soil line.

2. Rinse; get water away from trunk.

3. take pic and post it here.

4. Do not apply anything yet.
 
Back
Top